With Microsoft rumored to be working on their ?blue? platform (smaller yearly releases), and Ubuntu considering going the same direction, large companies may have to consider moving to a different model than waiting to upgrade every three years. Curious indeed!

This has been under consideration for many years, but there has never been good enough reason to alter the way things were done. With Ubuntu moving into the mobile space, agility will be a key factor in how successful they are. If they can keep the whole experience fresh continuously, it will be awesome, as opposed to one semi-major update every six months.

I suppose end users might experience more euphoria at getting a big update though, so I guess only time will tell.

Makes sense. I already consider all non-LTS releases of Ubuntu to be glorified betas anyway, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Ditching the 6 month releases inbetween LTS releases would allow them greater flexibility in development without tying them down to those time-consuming frequent releases that offer limited value for the serious end user who just wants things to work.

If this led to more updated server packages I could take it seriously.

The problem is that it's hard to get both stability and the latest features. Everyone complains that packages are old after a year, but forget that tradeoff. That package is a year or more old, but it's had a crapload of bugfixes. Ubuntu has struck a good balance in providing new stuff every six months, but also an LTS for those who just want it to work. If you're asking for incremental updates in the LTS, then hopefully they'll be vetted a bit more than just throwing them over the fence like the current non-LTS releases do.

What defines Ubuntu is essentially a handful of packages (mostly UI), a 6 month release cycle, and a for-profit organization providing support. Otherwise the distro is almost verbatim Debian. So with a rolling release they are just planning on using Debian unstable's model?

As someone who runs and loves Debian unstable, I guess that's a good thing, but I guess it's just blurring the lines between the distributions even more.

Multiple hierarchies cover different intertwined package sets (IE, desktop experience has one, I believe, and there's one responsible for the base OS type stuff, and another responsible for security-focused packages and server packages..), and they each vet the packages in their area to make sure they're stable and don't break other things.

This can cause interesting compatibility issues as upgrades in one area force upgrades in another... but it has worked out well on my gentoo servers for the past... geeze, 8-9 years?

One reason I do not use a Linux distro is because of the updates every 6 months that disable all my third party repositories and weak havoc on the customizations I have made. If rolling release happens I will switch to Ubuntu (using Cinnamon rather than Unity.) The only problem I see is that Cinnamon doesn't put a taskbar on your second monitor...

If this led to more updated server packages I could take it seriously.

The problem is that its hard to get both stability and the latest features. Everyone complains that packages are old after a year, but forget that tradeoff. Ubuntu has struck a good balance I think in providing new stuff every six months but an LTS for those who just want it to work. If you're asking for incremental updates in the LTS, then hopefully they'll be vetted a bit more than just throwing them over the fence like the current non-LTS releases do.

This is the main reason why I used LTS. If I wanted a rolling release then I wouldn't be usining Ubuntu. I know why they would want to move away from this but I have a feeling that if they do, it will be less stable than the current LTS. The good part is that if it does change for the worse (for me) there are enough distros out there that could fit the bill.

Linux Mint Debian Edition is my current go-to distro, because I get Ubuntu-like end-user-friendly features (e.g. easy to install codecs), along with an up-to-date web browser (the main attraction of a rolling release to me).

I think this would actually be a very positive change for Ubuntu if they made the rolling release optional - basically, you could install the current LTS release and have it not significantly update for two years if that kind of thing is important to you (the same type of user who only uses LTS releases under the current scheme). However, if you wanted the latest features, you could do the rolling release thing and have them - sure, things might break once in a while, but they'd be easier to track down, because there'd be fewer changes at one time, and features would be able to be released more when they were ready, instead of cramming half-baked betas into six-month release windows (the first few Unity releases were just awful, because they were missing a lot of the features (mainly options) of what they replaced).

One reason I do not use a Linux distro is because of the updates every 6 months that disable all my third party repositories and weak havoc on the customizations I have made. If rolling release happens I will switch to Ubuntu (using Cinnamon rather than Unity.) The only problem I see is that Cinnamon doesn't put a taskbar on your second monitor...

Okay, just pick up whatever the current LTS version of Mint with Cinnamon you want, and don't do a major update every 6 months.

Linux Mint Debian Edition is my current go-to distro, because I get Ubuntu-like end-user-friendly features (e.g. easy to install codecs), along with an up-to-date web browser (the main attraction of a rolling release to me).

I think this would actually be a very positive change for Ubuntu if they made the rolling release optional - basically, you could install the current LTS release and have it not significantly update for two years if that kind of thing is important to you (the same type of user who only uses LTS releases under the current scheme). However, if you wanted the latest features, you could do the rolling release thing and have them - sure, things might break once in a while, but they'd be easier to track down, because there'd be fewer changes at one time, and features would be able to be released more when they were ready, instead of cramming half-baked betas into six-month release windows (the first few Unity releases were just awful, because they were missing a lot of the features (mainly options) of what they replaced).

Ubuntu changed the way they handle things a bit because Chrome and Firefox both moved to more a rapid, incremental update schedule and it was starting to suck being stuck with the same version for six months. I use 12.04 on my old laptop and it gets the latest Firefox (without having to use a PPA), usually a day or so after the official Mozilla release. LMDE I've only played with a bit in a VM, but from my limited experience it's not quite as nice and polished as having a single Ubuntu version with an updated browser.

And there we go full cycle back to Debian. Ubuntu killed Debian precisely because they were releasing new stuff quickly and didn't have a ridiculous process to make even minor feature improvements that stretched for months and sometimes years. And now it seems they want to go back to the same.

Arch Linux has been very successful as a rolling release distro, but it's also a very different beast than ubuntu. Arch is more modular than ubuntu, and less complicated in general. Furthermore, the developers aren't adverse to occasionally breaking people's operating system if they don't read instructions before updating. But I was always very impressed with what sort of stability arch was able to offer while doing rolling releases with a much smaller development team than distros like Fedora or Ubuntu.

Makes sense. I already consider all non-LTS releases of Ubuntu to be glorified betas anyway, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Ditching the 6 month releases inbetween LTS releases would allow them greater flexibility in development without tying them down to those time-consuming frequent releases that offer limited value for the serious end user who just wants things to work.

I also stick with the LTS and consider the interim releases as development versions. I like the stability of NOT introducing the new "features" until I'm good and ready--after the guinea pigs have tested them by installing the interim releases. So, I don't really like this idea since we LTS-ers would be getting all those updates as soon as Canonical releases them whether we like it or not. Unless there is a option to disable them, that is.

Arch Linux has been very successful as a rolling release distro, but it's also a very different beast than ubuntu. Arch is more modular than ubuntu, and less complicated in general. Furthermore, the developers aren't adverse to occasionally breaking people's operating system if they don't read instructions before updating. But I was always very impressed with what sort of stability arch was able to offer while doing rolling releases with a much smaller development team than distros like Fedora or Ubuntu.

Yes! I agree. Having used both Ubuntu and Arch for prolonged periods (I used to be an archer, then spent about a year in Ubuntu and recently switched back to Arch), I've always been extremely surprised by the facts that (to me) Ubuntu seems to be FAR buggier. I don't remember having any issues in Arch (besides windows screwing my PC's clock) since the update to Python 3 (which just broke AUR -unofficial- packages).I decided to abandon Ubuntu (despite it's easier, more down-to-earth approach... getting printing to work in Arch is a pain...) because of rolling releases vs the crappy 6 months wait, and because of AUR vs the crappy PPA system...Anyways, customers should be very comfortable nowadays with rolling-releases... Chrome & Firefox work that way.

Well, this should be fun! My HD 4670 card relies on 12.6 Legacy drivers that don't work with 12.10. I was able to research this prior to updating. I opted to stick with 12.04 in hopes AMD would update them to work with the newer xorg. With a rolling release, I would have been greeted to a black screen and fumbling for a solution. Now more than ever, it's open source drivers (Intel) or bust if Canonical goes this route.

Stable gets updates last and most tested. Unstable gets updates faster and mostly tested. AreYouNuckingFuts gets updates all but real-time and barely knows the meaning of the word testing.

The major releases then become convenient install freezes.

For reference, I run Debian stable on servers, unstable on workstations. It's worked well for me, although I did end up pinning BIND to unstable for some reason I no longer recall. I also have some Mint scattered around. (I've pretty much abandoned Ubuntu. By the time I unass it, I might as well just start from Debian anyway.)

One reason I do not use a Linux distro is because of the updates every 6 months that disable all my third party repositories and weak havoc on the customizations I have made. If rolling release happens I will switch to Ubuntu (using Cinnamon rather than Unity.) The only problem I see is that Cinnamon doesn't put a taskbar on your second monitor...

You don't have to update every six months.I tend to install the latest I can get when I build a new system and stick with it until it is end of life.Then once it is end of life, I stick latest CentOS on it and it becomes a headless server because it is now much slower than the new PC I just built.

But when I build a new box, I want recent stuff on it.

I guess it doesn't effect me, I was a Fedora fanboy that started using Ubuntu but with 12.10 being a steamy pile of adware, I'm back to Fedora for my LOTD needs.

What may really be behind this is they haven't really found a way to monetize Ubuntu and the Amazon adds are not bringing in the revenue they hoped because people either switch to mint or disable them.

I was surprised to hear this but I think it's definitely a good move. I've already been running a mix of Gentoo on my desktops and Ubuntu LTS for my servers for many years now. And Arch certainly has been proving that a rolling release can work very well. I do think 2 years is a bit too long for an LTS however. In any case, a rolling release of Ubuntu (which would be much easier and faster to install than Gentoo or Arch) would be very welcome.

I don't see a problem, it'll let them decide on proper GUI changes rather than pushing Unity (or whatever may follow it) at a pace that defies proper planning.

Still complaining about Unity ? It been almost two years now, I think you can stop bitching about it and just install one of the 3 DE based on gnome 2.

Mate been rebranded Gnome 2, Cinnamon been Gnome 3 re-skin and Consort which is Gnome 3 fallback mode fork, has Gnome project team no longer want to spend resource on it. So not like you have a lack of choice.

I admit Consort just saw it 1.0 release, but I think of the 3 it the most well sounded, has Mate will most likely go the way of the dodo when Wayland starting pointing it nose in the different distro, while cinnamon lose relevance each time time gnome 3 get updated and the extension pool grow.

Ah, the stable rolling release method... It is the ultimate paradox in all of linux: How do we keep all the major packages updated without breaking things? There are so many issues that I see at hand:

1. The term "stability" is subjective. Stable can mean "never changing" - some people would consider new features in apps, like a different UI to become "breakage" no matter how many bug fixes it has. Also, many projects that interpret their work "stable" so differently, and figuring out how truly usable it is for end users can take a long time to test.

2. The schedules of many software releases are quite off tempo. Some projects "release when ready," and others release on fixed schedules. Some release very frequently, and others take years to become release worthy. Packaging against an upstream in flux is quite tricky.

3. You have to balance both keeping packages up to date and preventing the end user becoming only the "tester" of the new packages at the same time. Sure, you want to give them new features and support, but you also want to test them to solve the critical bugs beforehand. And while you do that, you don't want to fall so far behind the upstream. The amount of work just to do that can be overwhelming.

4. Propietary drivers are rather annoying to deal with for the end user, and in my experience, they are quite inconsistant across releases. I actually have an 11.10 partition on my computer with an NVIDIA graphics card just because the drivers optimize 3-d perfomance better than any other release that I've tried.

From this, I wonder if Ubuntu - or any distro for that matter - could ever pull off this method with true end users like I would ideally want, or if it will get bogged down by end-user complaints, and just become a giant testing ground for the advanced users to play with. What a predigament...

Dumb idea. As motherboards and hardware changes, installs will then either require a custom spin or a driver disk.

Such as? I'm confused as to how you think this is true.

Quote:

Updating every six months and that rarely is an issue, drivers for new hardware is usually on the iso you download.

And you get new and updated drivers every time you install a newer kernel or Xorg (if graphics are involved.) Perhaps I'm missing something so it'd help for you to add some detail.

I'm talking about the installer. e.g. does it support SSD's ?? Currently I suspect they all do, but two years is a long time and a lot of hardware comes out in two years that may require drivers not in the kernel on the installation CD.

Does it support the wifi card? Lot of people now don't even have wired networks, so they can't get any updates if the install CD does not have a driver that works with the wifi card in the system.

Out of curiosity, Mairin Duffy (Fedora designer / ui expert employed by RedHat as "senior iteractive designer" and co-author of Anaconda installer redesign) just blogged about a proposed change in Fedora deployment model.

The proposal was made by Tom "Spot" Calloway, another prominent Fedora contributor and RedHat employee, at FUDCON (Fedora User and Developer unConference), and, skipping full details, was mostly similar to what we see from ubuntu - a major release every two years, with biggest changes (think systemd, anaconda redesign) and dot releases every six months with minor changes (kernel updates, major application upgrading).

Funny that two major distributions, both corporate backed, are thinking of simplifying their release cycle. Looks like a six months commitment is quite too much - and I completely agree.

Dumb idea. As motherboards and hardware changes, installs will then either require a custom spin or a driver disk.

Updating every six months and that rarely is an issue, drivers for new hardware is usually on the iso you download.

Ubuntu already releases updated images for LTS's. The latest LTS image is 12.04.1 and 12.04.2 is expected next month. 12.04.2 will be a unique release as it will be the first LTS image to use a brand new kernel & graphics drivers (backported from 12.10).